Obviously you do have a side - the no side. And that's fine. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining that the yes people called you names when your fellow no voters are just as guilty of calling others names. Call out both sides, or accept that it's an uncivil debate. Don't try to pretend that one side is being more uncivil than the other when there are plenty of name callers on both sides. The most rabid no voters also tell their fair share of lies. Again let's not pretend one side has a monopoly on truth. I respect your point of view, and personally voted no last time, though I'm changing my vote to yes this time.

Finally we can air this out. As part of the NO from last time we had to have meetings about how to handle insults, curses, some even threatened. I watched a yes person flipping off No people. The stance taken was ignore the ignorance. First meeting it happened and I refused to speak because a yes voter jumped down my throat over a question. Interrupted rudely and treated such disrespect this person should be band from meetings. At that point I wanted to just hear the facts and make an educated decision about the over ride.. assumed I was a no. At that time I was against the 5.18 but thought maybe their was a more reasonable number. What was it 25,000 on your last campaign. That’s worth a new police cruiser. I have to say I’m sick it too. When you have nothing you are forced to resort to insults.

From what I'm seeing, the "undecided" and "No" side has the most valid position. The Mayor and "One Melrose/MEF' proclaims that we need to get educated on the override. The undecided crowd asks (as they have since before the last failed override) to show us the legal fee costs and total costs of settlements we are incurring due to incompetence of the SC chair, committee members and top school administrators (you know, the info they wouldn't release and then wanted to charge school committee member $7000 for back in 2014) This info has still not seen the light of day for a reason. They know the taxpayers would be shocked at the costs that are being incurred to defend these incompetents. In August 2018, Alderman-at-large Monica Medeiros requested a copy of the current population projections survey (funded by the tax payers of course) to help residents understand how the projected growth in school age children plays into the override projects. We are now into December and the Mayor still refuses to release the study. So here are two simple requests for public documents that would shed some light on whether there is a need for an override. Sadly, the taxpayer has yet again had to fund the legal fees to defend these ridiculous and unlawful positions to the Secretary of State's Office even though the city knows darn well it is required to release under the State's Public Records Laws but simply refuses to do so.

So when the Mayor, One Melrose, and MEF crowd start advocating for us to "get educated" about the override lets see them put their money where there mouth is. Do they really want an educated voter? Do they want transparency? I think we all no real answer.

I guess in one sense you are right - I do have a side. It's not the Yes side or the No side - at least not yet. It's the truth side. The full disclosure side. I'm not going to vote yes if I don't feel like I have the facts, or if I feel as if I'm being misled or lied to. The Yes people outright lied to us the last time. Now the onus is on them to show me that they're not doing so again. If they could do that I'd consider a yes vote. But when all they can manage is to insult anyone who asks for details, it doesn't do much to convince me. Do some No people respond to their insults with anger? Sure. That's human nature. When someone tries to bull$hit me I also find it annoying, and on occasion I might be tempted to respond with a resounding "go f*** yourself" too. But I haven't done it here, and I won't. I also won't vote to spend five million bucks a year forever if I think I'm being fed a line of bull$hit - again. If you don't understand why I'm skeptical you haven't been paying attention the last ten or twelve years.

From what I'm seeing, the "undecided" and "No" side has the most valid position. The Mayor and "One Melrose/MEF' proclaims that we need to get educated on the override. The undecided crowd asks (as they have since before the last failed override) to show us the legal fee costs and total costs of settlements we are incurring due to incompetence of the SC chair, committee members and top school administrators (you know, the info they wouldn't release and then wanted to charge school committee member $7000 for back in 2014) This info has still not seen the light of day for a reason. They know the taxpayers would be shocked at the costs that are being incurred to defend these incompetents. In August 2018, Alderman-at-large Monica Medeiros requested a copy of the current population projections survey (funded by the tax payers of course) to help residents understand how the projected growth in school age children plays into the override projects. We are now into December and the Mayor still refuses to release the study. So here are two simple requests for public documents that would shed some light on whether there is a need for an override. Sadly, the taxpayer has yet again had to fund the legal fees to defend these ridiculous and unlawful positions to the Secretary of State's Office even though the city knows darn well it is required to release under the State's Public Records Laws but simply refuses to do so.

So when the Mayor, One Melrose, and MEF crowd start advocating for us to "get educated" about the override lets see them put their money where there mouth is. Do they really want an educated voter? Do they want transparency? I think we all no real answer.

Well, here is at least part of the answer to your costs questions. I wonder how much info I could find if I spent 10 minutes instead of the 30 seconds this took researching.

The yes side also has a valid position. It's this. "our schools have an annual budgetary shortfall. Let's fix it." I get being mad about the Civil rights violations, but they happened, and we paid the fines and legal costs, and now we move on. Why are we punishing students, and continuing to take money from other departments to fill the budget shortfall, to punish tayemore for those mistakes? Regardless of who is in charge, the budget needs to be shores up. If you don't like the leadership, vote for new committee members when they are up for reelection. Don't punish entire classes of students and teachers until Melrose votes for SC members you like.

The simplistic explanations for the current so-called budget woes are just so inadequate. The "structural deficit" is an artificial construct, one of several such artificial constructs carried over year after year every time Patrick and RD needed to cry budget wolf, something they and now GI have done virtually every year. Another Dolan favorite false construct is that the "stimulus ended," thereby "denying" Melrose federal funds that were only granted one time and were never meant to be an annual recurring item. It's just bogus that this "denial" is being advanced every year now after the one-time stimulus was granted. It's not a "denial" when it was never a real thing in the first place! Everything about the way the budget is structured and presented by Melrose officials is aimed at grabbing the sympathy of gullible voters and elected officials while concealing the many deceits enclosed.

The ones punishing students are the administrators and officials who make terrible decisions year after year, and the elected officials who codify this with their budget votes. It never had to be this way, nor does it have to continue. Yes, of course there are a number of fixed costs that the district is mandated to pay for. But that just isn't the whole story. Buying the whole package as presented by the administration without looking carefully at the particulars already provided and demanding all those that are actively being concealed is what is punishing the students and the taxpayers.

If anyone thinks that the budget "truth" is being told, they are sorely mistaken. There are lots of well-meaning citizens trying to do the right thing by supporting this boondoggle, just as some of the officials are also trying to do the right thing (cannot say all of them, because some are brazenly working to suppress the full truth and actively misrepresenting the situation, ONCE AGAIN).

Just because something is in the "Free Press" or on the mayor's blog does not mean it's true! It's ironic that the article being tagged here is about hiring an assistant city solicitor, as if that was somehow a virtuous thing. If anyone cares enough to pursue how many wrong-headed and in fact documented inappropriate (and in some cases illegal) actions have been taken by long-time Dolan city solicitor RvC, there are many file folders full of them and plenty of publicly available info as well (despite the chronic efforts to conceal that which is supposed to be transparent to the public!). Hiring another lawyer to be under the direction of RvC is just more foolishness rubber-stamped by the SC and BOA. That also did nothing to stem the enormous tide of special ed legal costs that have burgeoned under this wretched superintendent and her TWO useless and/or damaging assistant superintendents (remember when Melrose only had one?). Look at the total enormous expansion of the school administration budget under these menaces, and then look at student outcomes and see if you think students and taxpayers have gotten what they are paying through the nose for!

There are individuals in this city who understand the actual issues and try their best to convey it despite the shunning and bullying they get for their thanks. If you want to know the truth and stop "punishing" students, it's there to be explored thoughtfully, or rather, some of it is there, while the rest of it needs to be demanded.

No, Monica has not received any of what she has asked for in August. I believe there is a pending complaint with the Secretary of State's office, Public Records Compliance Division. The documents are all required to be released if they exist, which they do.

From what I\'m seeing, the \"undecided\" and \"No\" side has the most valid position. The Mayor and \"One Melrose/MEF\' proclaims that we need to get educated on the override. The undecided crowd asks (as they have since before the last failed override) to show us the legal fee costs and total costs of settlements we are incurring due to incompetence of the SC chair, committee members and top school administrators (you know, the info they wouldn\'t release and then wanted to charge school committee member $7000 for back in 2014) This info has still not seen the light of day for a reason. They know the taxpayers would be shocked at the costs that are being incurred to defend these incompetents. In August 2018, Alderman-at-large Monica Medeiros requested a copy of the current population projections survey (funded by the tax payers of course) to help residents understand how the projected growth in school age children plays into the override projects. We are now into December and the Mayor still refuses to release the study. So here are two simple requests for public documents that would shed some light on whether there is a need for an override. Sadly, the taxpayer has yet again had to fund the legal fees to defend these ridiculous and unlawful positions to the Secretary of State\'s Office even though the city knows darn well it is required to release under the State\'s Public Records Laws but simply refuses to do so.

So when the Mayor, One Melrose, and MEF crowd start advocating for us to \"get educated\" about the override lets see them put their money where there mouth is. Do they really want an educated voter? Do they want transparency? I think we all no real answer.

Well, here is at least part of the answer to your costs questions. I wonder how much info I could find if I spent 10 minutes instead of the 30 seconds this took researching.

The yes side also has a valid position. It's this. "our schools have an annual budgetary shortfall. Let's fix it." I get being mad about the Civil rights violations, but they happened, and we paid the fines and legal costs, and now we move on. Why are we punishing students, and continuing to take money from other departments to fill the budget shortfall, to punish tayemore for those mistakes? Regardless of who is in charge, the budget needs to be shores up. If you don't like the leadership, vote for new committee members when they are up for reelection. Don't punish entire classes of students and teachers until Melrose votes for SC members you like.

Responding to "Doing Research", the Wicked Local article you identified reveals nothing about the district's total legal costs other than the very narrow focus of the legal fees incurred responding specifically to The Office of Civil Rights findings that a racially hostile environment existed; that the district had notice of the racially hostile environment; and that the district failed to respond adequately to redress the racially hostile environment.

Also notable in the article was that the school committee would hire a $65,000 part time in-house counsel, curiously, under the supervision of the current city solicitor. Even more alarming was the city solicitor's remarks that the new "assistant city solicitor" would also serve as the district’s civil rights officer, investigating any civil rights complaints AND representing MPS in any civil rights cases brought against the district. "VanCampen said he routinely represents the city in matters he investigated, so having MPS’s attorney both investigating civil rights complaints and defending the district against those complaints would not constitute a conflict." Given that all reports of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation are required by law to be investigated in an impartial a manner as possible, the school district's attorney would be prohibited by civil rights regulations and Massachusetts Bar Code of Ethics from serving in both the "impartial" of role of the district's Civil Rights Officer/investigator and representing the district in the same civil rights case.